posted at 6:25 pm on December 1, 2010 by Allahpundit

Via Mediaite, which soberly observes that Judson Phillips’s opinion proves nothing about tea party opinion generally. I’m not so sure that this clip proves anything conclusive about Phillips’s opinion either: It’s conspicuously brief, seemingly cutting out before he leaves the subject, and it comes from Think Progress, which hasn’t always done a sterling job of editing conservatives for context. But judging from the number of comments piling up in the Headlines thread about this, you guys want to have (or continue) a food fight about it, so here you go. Let the tomato- and pie-throwing begin!

Apart from the fact that a rule like this would exclude a whole lot of poor people from voting and would therefore surely be unconstitutional as a variant of a poll tax, it makes less sense the less local the election is. The fear is that renters won’t carefully consider what’s best for their community since they can always bug out if the neighborhood starts to deteriorate; rarely will that be true if the “community” in question is the United States and the election involved is a federal one (notwithstanding the temptation to move to Canada if The One is elected to a second term), which I think is what Phillips has in mind here. Beyond that, though, it’s simply not universally true that renters are less wedded to their community than property owners. Take it from me: If you’re willing to pay the sort of rent it takes to live in New York City (rent-controlled apartments excluded, natch), it’s because you really want to live in New York City. I’ve paid a pretty penny over the years for the right to be resoundingly crushed by Democrats in every state and local election. Don’t take my right away!

Update: Apparently Phillips sent out a blast e-mail about all the leftist attention to this clip a few hours ago. I’m not on the mailing list but Ed is. Here’s what Phillips says:

Do they really want this fight?

A couple of weeks ago, on the Tea Party Nation radio show, I was talking with David DeGerolamo of NC Freedom about the Founding Fathers and the original Constitution. During the course of our discussion, I mentioned that the founding fathers limited voting rights to property owners. I commented this was a wise idea.

Apparently, two weeks after the show, some liberal stumbled across it and today, that comment has turned into liberal headlines such as, “Tea Party Nation President says It Makes A Lot of Sense to Restrict Voting to Property Owners” and “Tea Party Leaders Attack Constitution.” Suddenly, this has morphed from a discussion between two tea partiers into articles claiming that I want to change the Constitution to restrict voting to property owners.

To put it mildly, the left went nuts.

Watching the left go into hysteria over this has been nothing short of amusing. Of course, when the left goes spastic over something like this, they either get it wrong, or nine times out of ten, they lie about what was said. One of the more amusing stories started out, “Listen to Tea Party Nation President Judson Phillips discuss ending voting rights for those who do not own property!”

Of course, it begs the question; do they really want this fight?

Let’s talk about the left and voting. Perhaps we should start with ACORN. In 2007, eight members of Acorn were arrested and all later pled guilty to voter fraud. ACORN is of course, a self admitted leftist organization. This would be noteworthy in and of itself, but of course, this isn’t the first time. In 1986, twelve ACORN members pleaded guilty to voter fraud. In February 2005, an ACORN worker was convicted of voter fraud in the St. Louis area.

In Houston this year, out of 25,000 voter registrations submitted by a liberal group called Houston Votes, less than 2,000 were actually valid.

In Illinois this year, at least 35 counties failed to send ballots to U.S Service members overseas in time for them to vote. However, in Chicago, election officials made certain that ballots were delivered to criminals incarcerated in the Cook County Jail.

This year, in Arizona, the liberal groups Mi Familia, Border Action and Faith, Hope &Vote bombarded the Yuma, AZ Recorders office with a massive number of registrations right before the deadline. Of those registrations, over 8000 were found to be forged. Over 300 were by convicted felons or illegal aliens.

Of course, this does not even begin to discuss the storied history of liberal Democrat election fraud. “Landside” Lyndon Johnson was the master in Texas of getting dead people to vote for him. In Chicago, the Dailey machine was legendary in stuffing ballot boxes. In more recent times, Democrats in Washington stole the Governor’s race from Dino Rossi in 2004 and the Minnesota Senate seat from Norm Coleman in 2008.

Liberals do not believe in fair elections. This goes back to the general problem liberals have with any form of competition. They do not like the competition of ideas because their ideas suck and Americans by a wide margin do not like their ideas. That is why they have to steal elections.

That is why liberals have to register people multiple times to vote. That is why they have to get dead people to vote. That is why they have to get illegal aliens to vote.

The left is currently trying to raise hell and lie about something I did not say regarding voting. Do they really want to bring their record on voting to the forefront?

Emphasis mine. He should post the transcript of the full exchange; like I said up top, this wouldn’t be the first time a conservative’s words had been bowdlerized by a lefty editor for maximum outrageous outrage effect.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Comments

Are you saying you don’t agree with my conclusion? Has the conservative bloc NOT been on the “limiting franchise” side of this argument every time? Can you point out an area where it was in fact liberals that attempted to limit the franchise? Do YOU agree with limiting the franchise? Is that a pro, or anti freedom position?

ernesto on December 1, 2010 at 7:27 PM

There have been liberal moves to restirct the franchise… for example, the recent efforts by some liberal enclaves to prevent U.S. servicemembers posted overseas from exercising their right to vote.

And yes, I agree that the franchise should be limited. For example, only real, living people who are adult citizens should be allowed to vote. I consider that pro-freedom.

Has the conservative bloc NOT been on the “limiting franchise” side of this argument every time? Can you point out an area where it was in fact liberals that attempted to limit the franchise? Do YOU agree with limiting the franchise? Is that a pro, or anti freedom position?

ernesto on December 1, 2010 at 7:27 PM

It’s true. Conservatives want to limit voting to those who actually contribute financially to it. Liberals open it up to illegals and dead people.

Conservatives want to limit voting to those who actually contribute financially to it.

John the Libertarian on December 1, 2010 at 7:47 PM

Which was, I’m sure, the argument they used when attempting to deny women the vote. At the time, there weren’t all that many women working; one could easily argue that they did not contribute financially.

Voting. Glorious voting. Oh what this wonderful voting has done for us! We are so much better off because of voting. When I think of the greatest single defender of our freedom and liberty, I think ‘Rock the Vote!’

Which was, I’m sure, the argument they used when attempting to deny women the vote. At the time, there weren’t all that many women working; one could easily argue that they did not contribute financially.

Which was, I’m sure, the argument they used when attempting to deny women the vote. At the time, there weren’t all that many women working; one could easily argue that they did not contribute financially.

ernesto on December 1, 2010 at 7:49 PM

Not at all. Women shared in their husband’s property, and those who were single worked, or could claim their right as part of a family of parents who financially contributed.

That puts you at odds with this Tea Party Nation chief, yet your comments are all in some way geared towards defending him. Why?

ernesto on December 1, 2010 at 7:48 PM

How have I defended it?

If I have, I apologize… that was not my intent. While I do believe he has the right to express his opinion, I do not believe that only property owners should be allowed to vote. What I have been meaning to do is challenge your efforts to label all conservatives as holding that stance.

If you want to challenge individuals’ comments on the thread, by all means go for it. But if you claim that all, or even most, conservatives hold that position then you’re open to counter arguments that all liberals hold some unsavory position maintained by few.

I may choose to hold myself to a higher standard than you, but I reserve the right to sink to your level.

So you’re disenfranchised/deprived of freedom because it’s illegal for you to drive at 120 miles an hour?

Jimbo3 on December 1, 2010 at 7:57 PM

If you made the statement, “I’m disenfranchised/deprived of freedom because it’s illegal for me to drive at 120 miles an hour?” then I would quibble about your less than conventional usage of the term disenfranchised, but I certainly couldn’t claim that you’re wrong.

Neither crr6 nor ernesto quibbled. They incorrectly told CW that he was wrong.

Neither crr6 nor ernesto quibbled. They incorrectly told CW that he was wrong.

blink on December 1, 2010 at 8:02 PM

So when the left tries to push things like the fairness doctrine they don’t disenfranchise? Really?

You mean when the left goes overboard with the notion of “separation of Church and State” they don’t disenfranchise?

When the left finds no place for Pro-Lifers they don’t disenfranchise?

CWforFreedom on December 1, 2010 at 7:36 PM

He was wrong with respect to his third point. That’s not government action or private action restricting a legal right. That would be like saying a group of seventh graders have disenfrachised my daughter if they won’t play with her at recess.

Conservatives: The only freedom lovers that will TELL YOU when you’re “interested enough” in society.

ernesto on December 1, 2010 at 7:07 PM

Liberals: The only freedom lovers that utterly detest freedom.

malclave on December 1, 2010 at 7:12 PM

…well…sort of both, if you qualify what you’re talking about when you’re parroting the media’s straw men styled as “liberal” and “conservative”.

What you’re talking about in either case (interchangable) is “totalitarian”. There’s a strong strain of “my way or the highway” coded in our human DNA.

…and totalitarians on the so-called “left” do so love to trash totalitarians on the so-called “right”, n’cest pas?

…and, the freedom most totalitarians cherish and tussle over is of the “I can do what I want, and feel free to do what I want, as well” variety….

…and “liberals” of that stripe aren’t actually very liberal (consult a dictionary), nor are “conservatives” so-called interested in conserving anything…other than their own cooked notions of the “good old days”….

…better: a society where people have autonomy over their lives with minimal intrusion, so long as they leave their neighbors to their own slice of autonomy…with governments doing the people’s business…and telling people what their business is….

…we once had such a society…even wrote a document to establish it…now…there’s something worth resurrecting….

When the left finds no place for Pro-Lifers they don’t disenfranchise?

CWforFreedom on December 1, 2010 at 7:36 PM

He was wrong with respect to his third point. That’s not government action or private action restricting a legal right. That would be like saying a group of seventh graders have disenfrachised my daughter if they won’t play with her at recess.

Actually, he wasn’t wrong. He asked a question. They could have merely answered no.

I came in at the very end of the Headline thread and didn’t notice this post, so I’ll put it up here.

Phillips saying that the Founders established a property qualification for voting is balderdash. The only requirement they put on voting was if the state allowed voting for the largest state body, that voter was allowed to vote in federal elections.

States, individually, established qualifications, not the Founders, meaning the establishers of the Federal Government, though some played dual Federal and State roles. But the qualifications were all over the place. Most property qualifications were not exclusively land ownership, but the more general property, which, I’ll hazard, also included money. IIRC, some didn’t have it but had taxes paid and Vermont had no property qualification in 1790. By 1800 a few more eliminated the property qualification. By about 1830, pretty much both property and taxes paid had been dropped everywhere.

Considering how quickly and easily these qualifications were dropped and without much controversy, I hardly think the Founders thought them a good idea, especially since it was a vestige of British rule and easily linked to taxation without representation.

So evidently, according to some, when I was living out of my car & at one time, in a tent, I should have had no right to vote bcs of my unfortunate circumstances, even though I educate myself on the issues & am a good citizen.
Let’s f^@k those unfortunate people.
Bcs after all, if you can’t have that skin in the game then you must be a worthless turd who has no right to vote & have a say in anything that remotely affects them.
Yeah.

Phillips saying that the Found[ing Fath]ers established a property qualification for voting is balderdash.

True but they do not seem to have approved of universal suffrage. Take e.g. this statement:

“Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death.” — James Madison

If you’re going to use that theory, all three of his points were in the form of questions. I had assumed he meant them as rhetorical questions.

Jimbo3 on December 1, 2010 at 8:18 PM

You’re missing the point. Even if his questions were rhetorical (thereby making them statements), you’re claiming that his 3rd statement was wrong for a reason unrelated to the his use of the term.

You could say, “a group of seventh graders have deprived my daughter of a right because they won’t play with her at recess.”

I couldn’t claim that you misused the term deprive. You might have just made a logical error in making such a statement.

You could say, “I need to have a new Mercedes.” That statement is probably incorrect since you more likely want (not need) a Mercedes. That wouldn’t mean that you misused the term need, and it certainly doesn’t mean that you don’t understand the meaning of the term need.

We wanted all servicemen to vote…but liberals have steadfastly fought against this.
Other then that, it would be wiser (which you aren’t) to state that conservatives have fought to establish parameters on the constitutionality of voters.
We don’t “limit”, we enforce the existing rules…change the rules.
A citizen can vote…a non-citizen can’t, that is the law.
Prisoners can’t…that’s the law
Underage can’t…that’s the law
Rather then whining about people enforcing the law…change the law.

There has to be SOME benefit to being a citizen, other than the privilege of jury duty. ;)

I can’t speak from firsthand experience, but it seems to me that a legal resident has not made the same commitment to the country that a naturalized citizen has; a resident may live and work here, but a citizen has elected to become part of the nation.

Not under a felony conviction at the time of the election,

Why?

The person has indicated a serious disdain for the law, and I believe that forfeiture of the right to vote is reasonable until, as they say, “the debt to society has been repaid”.

You’re missing the point. Even if his questions were rhetorical (thereby making them statements), you’re claiming that his 3rd statement was wrong for a reason unrelated to the his use of the term.

You could say, “a group of seventh graders have deprived my daughter of a right because they won’t play with her at recess.”

I couldn’t claim that you misused the term deprive. You might have just made a logical error in making such a statement.

You could say, “I need to have a new Mercedes.” That statement is probably incorrect since you more likely want (not need) a Mercedes. That wouldn’t mean that you misused the term need, and it certainly doesn’t mean that you don’t understand the meaning of the term need.

blink on December 1, 2010 at 8:32 PM

You’re missing my point. Disenfranchising refers to legal rights. My daughter has no legal or other right to require kids to play with her, so she can’t be disenfranchised if they don’t. Pro-lifers have no legal or other right to require lefties to accept their view of the world/allow them to make policies/whatever.

And just how does one PROVE LPR status when NO DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED?

Talon on December 1, 2010 at 8:44 PM

It’s not required of citizens in most states now and it hasn’t been a problem. I don’t see how it would become a problem with LPR’s. Although, the fact that you put a few of those words in capital letters does make your point more persuasive.

My daughter has no legal or other right to require kids to play with her, so she can’t be disenfranchised if they don’t.

And you may WANT a Mercedes instead of NEED a Mercedes. Just because your statement is incorrect doesn’t mean you didn’t understand the meaning of the term NEED. You may simply believe that you NEED a Mercedes.

And your daughter might have thought that she had a legal right or a privilege to have the other girls play with her. Just because she’s wrong about that doesn’t mean she used the wrong term.

True but they do not seem to have approved of universal suffrage. Take e.g. this statement:

“Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death.” — James Madison

[aengus on December 1, 2010 at 8:27 PM]

Obviously, but that is so from looking at history, not that Madison quote. Madison, there, was arguing for purposes of contrasting Democracy with Republic and not about voting rights or suffrage. I’d have to look at it closely, but my guess is that the Democracy Madison was thinking of was also one of direct rule, not representational rule.

It’s not required of citizens in most states now and it hasn’t been a problem. I don’t see how it would become a problem with LPR’s. Although, the fact that you put a few of those words in capital letters does make your point more persuasive.

crr6 on December 1, 2010 at 8:47 PM

Well answer me this then smarmy ass lib, what proof of United States citizenship would you require in order to cast a vote in any election in the United States of America?

I did use some capital letters in this post as well. Full disclosure and all.

It’s not required of citizens in most states now and it hasn’t been a problem.

It hasn’t?

Missy on December 1, 2010 at 9:20 PM

Nope. From 2002-2006 there were 86 voter fraud convictions out of something like 400 million votes cast. And that’s after the Bush DoJ tried to crack down on it.

It’s a complete non-issue.

Well answer me this then smarmy ass lib, what proof of United States citizenship would you require in order to cast a vote in any election in the United States of America?

None. That’s the way it is in most states now. If voter fraud becomes a huge problem or if people have much easier access to photo ID’s than maybe we should change that. But it isn’t and they don’t so we shouldn’t.

I did use some capital letters in this post as well. Full disclosure and all.

The Left supports disenfranchising members of the U.S. military and have done so over and over again since the 2000 election.

I support disenfranchisement, too, but of different groups. I don’t believe dead people, felons, illegal aliens, cartoon characters and non-existent people have a right to vote. I also don’t believe voters registered at vacant lots and in numbers far more than one building can contain should be allowed to vote, either. I also don’t believe Democrat voters should be allowed to go from polling place to polling place voting as others who have not voted or as other phony voters.

Democrats believe all of the above should have their votes counted while members of the U.S. military should not.

None. That’s the way it is in most states now. If voter fraud becomes a huge problem or if people have much easier access to photo ID’s than maybe we should change that. But it isn’t and they don’t so we shouldn’t.

Here in Wisconsin the only thing we don’t require photo ID for is voting. Heck, to buy additives for your car’s engine, you need to show photo ID. To buy virtually anything in a pharmacy, you have to show photo ID. Cash a check? Photo ID. Rent a DVD? Photo ID? Several grocery store chains plus a number of towns require photo ID for all liquor purchases regardless of age.

But not for voting. You can walk into any polling place and claim to be anyone on the roll and vote as that person. There was a Marquette University student in 2000 who voted 10 times in 10 different polling places — all for Algore, no doubt — and admitted it live on a local radio show. I believe him. How many others did the Democrats have out there doing the same thing? That was the same election that the lefty operative was buying votes for Algore with cash and cigarettes for bums on the street.